I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.

cgraves67:I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.

Condition of cars? That is officially the dumbest thing I have heard in terms of hiring.

In organizational psychology this is known as the U-scale or U-factor. It measures the moving average of unattractiveness in an organization on a weekly basis and influences employee selection and cultural fit assessment. For example, a smaller company with a higher U-factor will not want to walk their candidates through the main part of the office to where they will conduct the interview. If they do, they are advised to provide distraction. Candidates can be shown various parts of the company that are only planned in advance. Exposure of candidates to personnel in a high U-factor organization can result in the company's inability to negotiate a lower offer if they really like the candidate.

U-factor is linked to male employee tardiness, male employee performance and male employee attrition. Many organizations are now adding it to their human resources processes for both interviewing and performance reviews. One company in the mid-west is looking to provide a bonus plan for those who take it upon themselves to improve their personal U-factor to include a gym membership and makeovers.

The upside of having of an organization having a high U-factor is that the potential for romantic relationships among employees decreases for those with higher life expectations. The down side is an increase in gaming and Dungeons & Dragons tournaments in the break room.

Aar1012:cgraves67: I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.

Condition of cars? That is officially the dumbest thing I have heard in terms of hiring.

Some HR Farker is going to now defend such actions

been there, done that..

.. fired the guy who used car cleanliness as a hiring criteria once i was done defending the company to the EEOC

And Aar1012 - it makes more sense that it seems on the surface. It's just looking at a different metric as to how one lives their life, even if it would be presumptive and unfair if someone simply couldn't afford a better car. You can draw judgements like - if someone keeps their car in terrible shape, they're probably not the most responsible in general and thus might make an unreliable employee. If someone has a "Death to jews" bumper sticker, they're probably at risk for emotional issues. And a car full of mcdonalds wrappers might say someone's more interested in getting the job done quickly than getting it done right, or that they'll run late a portion of the time with poor time management skills.

I once had an interview in Switzerland where they insisted on flying me over for a face to face interview. I tried to talk them out of it as I figured it was wildly expensive - I said I'd gladly go to a teleconferencing center (this was before skype and such, get off my lawn). They insisted on the interview. So I went to Switzerland and shouted across the table at them as we ate at a cafe near a busy road. I was hired. I must be extremely good looking.

actually I know enough managers that, once the elimination of resumes finishes (those that don't meet the requirements), it's all 'gut feel'. Attractiveness and Socialization are all that matter at that point. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

2. Can you answer our technical interview questions thoroughly, showing that you not only know the material but you can also apply it as well?

3. Can you travel?

If the answer is "yes" to all 3, you are hired.

The end. There is no talk of hobbies, interests, or anything else.

Of course, I work in a heavily male dominated industry (IT) and get virtually no female applicants, particularly on our side since we do field services which involves a huge amount of travel (we don't get many women at all interested in that, I'm not sure why).

Since I'm not gay or bi (not that there is anything wrong with that), I don't get much opportunity to see if I would throw all that out the window for an attractive female candidate with a nice rack.

I'll admit it - I once hired an intern because I thought she was cute. Not massively babeolicious or anything, but... cute.

It backfired on me when it turned out that she actually wanted to fark me, which I did not see coming. Even back then in my early 30s I wouldn't consider myself some kind of stud that the girls swoon for.

Anyway, I'm very glad I never gave in. It would've been so easy but it would have screwed up my job, my marriage, and probably my whole life.

I would say I learned my lesson but if I ever have the chance to hire another intern... I'll probably make the same stupid mistake. Good thing that's not likely to happen in my current job.

Aar1012:cgraves67: I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.

Condition of cars? That is officially the dumbest thing I have heard in terms of hiring.

Some HR Farker is going to now defend such actions

Car cleanliness I could see. Some people have disgusting car interiors. It's farking gross. I'm not a germophobe (I just peed and didn't wash my hands!) but I have serious questions about anyone who is willing to sit in filth every time they drive somewhere. OTOH, I was just in a co-worker's car at lunch whose work I admire, and it was farking nasty. So while I don't like it perhaps it's not a great hiring criterion.

trapped-in-CH:actually I know enough managers that, once the elimination of resumes finishes (those that don't meet the requirements), it's all 'gut feel'

Very much this.

By the time a resume has made it through the HR gates, I can assume that all realistic minimums for the job have been met. The only thing that actually matters assuming they can do the job is whether or not I want to tolerate them for 40-60 hours a week.

Warrener:trapped-in-CH: actually I know enough managers that, once the elimination of resumes finishes (those that don't meet the requirements), it's all 'gut feel'

Very much this.

By the time a resume has made it through the HR gates, I can assume that all realistic minimums for the job have been met. The only thing that actually matters assuming they can do the job is whether or not I want to tolerate them for 40-60 hours a week.

My buddy is a manager at a local restaurant and he definitely does this. He searches job applicants names (women only, the men get instantly filed thirteened) on Facebook and only calls in the attractive single ones for interviews. He definitely has the hottest front of house staff in the neighborhood.

I remember a job that I lost to a less experienced worker because she was hot. It was a very small office, and I guess the guy decided he'd rather be bumping into her than into my beer gut. Can't say I blame him.

Chigau:Aar1012: cgraves67: I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.

Condition of cars? That is officially the dumbest thing I have heard in terms of hiring.

Some HR Farker is going to now defend such actions

been there, done that..

.. fired the guy who used car cleanliness as a hiring criteria once i was done defending the company to the EEOC

I wasn't aware that "condition of car" was a protected class. Why would the EEOC care about that?

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:My buddy is a manager at a local restaurant and he definitely does this. He searches job applicants names (women only, the men get instantly filed thirteened) on Facebook and only calls in the attractive single ones for interviews. He definitely has the hottest front of house staff in the neighborhood.

Only the good managers put a little side note on their applications to indicate how hot they are, so if the other foh managers aren't there they'll know when they look at them.

If an applicant drives anything more expensive than average, especially an SUV, that person does not get hired. A good company does not need to employ people who think it's worth paying an extra $10,000 for a car just to be able to say that the car is expensive. Not when cheaper cars are just as good.

And for a substantial percentage of Americans that was good enough to keep them happy for at least 4 of those years.

If I can stay happy with an employee for 4 years that's a win in my book.

/Only slightly trolling.//IMO the vast majority of people can be trained to do the vast majority of jobs in a few months assuming they know enough to toss around the right buzz words for HR.

I guess i've never worked for a large enough company or something, but what does HR have to do with you once you have the job? but for to talk about health insurance of something...

I still don't think i've ever talked to someone in HR in over 15 years in the job world. well, i've met a million of them in public, but never once at work... it's like, they don't actually have jobs themselves... they just tell people they do.

kg2095:Aar1012: cgraves67: I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.

Condition of cars? That is officially the dumbest thing I have heard in terms of hiring.

Some HR Farker is going to now defend such actions

I suppose if someone is too lazy to keep their car washed and free of litter then they may be lazy in other aspects of their life as well.

Wrong. My car is a mess because I don't care. My desk is neat and my work is accurate, because you pay me to care about that.

pute kisses like a man:I guess i've never worked for a large enough company or something, but what does HR have to do with you once you have the job? but for to talk about health insurance of something...

Worked for (or around) three big corporations so far. IIRC, I think HR's real job is to protect the company from lawsuits, at least it seemed that way to me. They (may) provide input to management about who to lay off...

Forbidden Doughnut:Worked for (or around) three big corporations so far. IIRC, I think HR's real job is to protect the company from lawsuits, at least it seemed that way to me. They (may) provide input to management about who to lay off...

That's pretty much it.

HR proper's main job is to make sure the company has plenty of CYA in case of law suit. So they do things like keep track of who's been through Sexual Harassment training in the last year and make sure the hiring managers know how to keep a proper paper trail when getting ready to fire someone. If they have any input at all into who gets laid off, it's purely from a metrics side (person X has been here for Y years and typically spends Z number of hours per day on Fark.) They also manage and organize employee benefits. Typically one of the HR managers is literally the only person in the entire company that knows all of the details of the companies medical and retirement plans.

HR Recruiting does what it can to get qualified applicants in for interviews with hiring managers. Considering that the people in those jobs know effectively nothing at all about the jobs they are hiring people for, the only tools they have to work with are buzzwords and years experience listed on the resume. By definition this limits their effectiveness.

I personally have a deep hatred for HR, since it typically hires really nice, personable people and turns them into cynical soul sucked jerks. They have essentially no power and despite their best intentions get to do nothing but find less crappy ways of passing shiatty news along to people they like.

BeowulfSmith:I work in a heavily male dominated industry (IT) and get virtually no female applicants, particularly on our side since we do field services which involves a huge amount of travel (we don't get many women at all interested in that, I'm not sure why).

Possibly societal expectations for women to keep the home fires burning and the children fed/washed/alive.

I know, men can do all that too, but our society still expect women to do it.